DE LOS SANTOS, JENNYLYN G.

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Case Numbers 449-476
449. Topic: Administrative complaint for disbarment and gross negligence.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Tejano Vs. Atty.
Baterina Joselito F. Tejano filed an Affidavit-Complaint before the Office of the The CPR rules and Lawyers have a “fourfold duty to society, the legal profession, These two disciplinary cases
Court Administrator of the Supreme Court against his counsel, Atty. lawyer’s oath violated the courts and their clients,” and must act “in accordance with against Atty. Baterina show a
CASE NO.: Baterina “miserably failed to advance his cause”, and Judge the values and norms of the legal profession as embodied in the pattern of neglecting his duty to
the following: his clients, as well as a propensity
AC No. 8235 Dominador Arquelada of acting in conspiracy to take possession of Code of Professional Responsibility.” When a lawyer agrees to
his property, which was the subject matter of litigation in the judge’s for disrespecting the authority of
Canon 18 take up a client’s cause, he makes a commitment to exercise due the courts. Such incorrigible
DATE OF court. diligence in protecting the latter’s rights. Once a lawyer’s behavior is unacceptable and will
PROMULGATION: The Court required Atty. Baterina to file a Comment on the RULE 18.03 services are engaged, “he is duty bound to serve his client with not be tolerated among the
Jan. 27, 2015 complaint to which he explained that he had been recuperating from
competence, and to attend to his client’s cause with diligence, members of the Bar.
a kidney transplant when he received a copy of the complaint. RULE 18.04 For this reason, the Court deems it
PONENTE: care and devotion regardless of whether he accepts it for a fee
The Court, found Atty. Baterina’s explanation “not satisfactory” and or for free. He owes fidelity to such cause and must always be proper to impose on Atty.
Justice Antonio T. Baterina a longer suspension
Carpio admonished him “to be more heedful of the Court’s directives” and mindful of the trust and confidence reposed on him.” A lawyer’s
period of five (5) years. Atty.
referred the case to the IBP for investigation, report and acceptance to take up a case “impliedly stipulates [that he will] Benjamin F. Baterina is
recommendation, which found sufficient ground for disciplinary carry it to its termination, that is, until the case becomes final found guilty of gross negligence.
action against Atty. Baterina. and executor.” Atty. Baterina’s duty to his clients did not He is suspended from the practice
automatically cease with his suspension. At the very least, such of law for five (5) years. He is
suspension gave him a concomitant responsibility to inform his also sternly warned that a
clients that he would be unable to attend to their case and repetition of the same or a similar
offense will be dealt with more
advise them to retain another counsel.
severely.
450. Topic: Notarizing documents without a commission.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED:
Re: Violation of
Rules on Notarial Three separate complaints were filed against the following:
Practice
1. Atty. Juan C. Siapno, Jr. (Atty. Siapno) for notarizing
documents without a commission. He never
commissioned as Notary Public for and within the
CASE NO.:
jurisdiction of Lingayen, Natividad and Dagupan City.
AM No 09-6-1-SC Instead, RTC San Carlos City, Pangasinan from March 22,
2007 to December 31, 2008. His notarial commission,
DATE OF however, was never renewed upon expiration. Also, he
PROMULGATION: had delegated his notarial authority to his secretaries,
Jan., 21,2015 Mina Bautista (Bautista) and Mary Ann Arenas (Arenas),
who wrote legal instruments and signed the documents
PONENTE: on his behalf.
Associate Justice
2. Atty. Pedro L. Santos - Complainant executed an
Jose C. Mendoza
affidavit of loss which was notarized by Atty. Santos. The
said affidavit, however, was denied for authentication
when presented before the Notarial Section in Manila
because Atty. Santos was not commissioned to perform
notarial commission within the City of Manila.
3. The third letter-complaint8 came from a concerned
citizen reporting that a certain Atty. Evelyn who was
holding office at Room 402 Leyba Bldg., 381 Dasmariñas
Street, Sta. Cruz, Manila, had been notarizing and signing
documents for and on behalf of several lawyers.
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Violation of the 2004 The Judge handling the case of Atty. Santos and Atty. Evelyn was Rule III of the 2004 Rules on
Rules on Notarial no longer the Executive Judge of RTC-Manila at the time the Notarial Practice provides that:
Commission orders of the Court were handed down to him. To date, no formal
investigation has been conducted on the alleged violation of Atty.
Santos and the reported illegal activities of a certain Atty. Evelyn. Jurisdiction and Term – A person
Therefore, the Court stated that the incumbent Executive Judge commissioned as notary public
of the RTC-Manila, whether permanent or in acting capacity, is may perform notarial acts in any
ordered to conduct a formal investigation on the matter and to place within the territorial
submit his Report and Recommendation within sixty (60) days jurisdiction of the commissioning
from receipt of copy of this decision. court for a period of two (2) years
commencing the first day of
January of the year in which the
commissioning is made, unless
earlier revoked or the notary
public has resigned under these
Rules and the Rules of Court.
In the case at bar, it is clear that
Atty Siapno violated the 2004 rules
on Notarial Commission. The
Court ruled, Atty. Siapno must be
barred from being commissioned
as notary public permanently and
suspended from the practice of
law for a period of two (2) years.
With respect to the complaints
against Atty. Pedro L. Santos and a
certain Atty. Evelyn, the Clerk of
Court is ordered to RE-
DOCKET them as separate
administrative cases.
451. Topic: Deceit and gross misconduct.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Dr. Villahermosa,
Sr. Vs. Atty. Caracol OCT No. 433 was a homestead patent granted to Micael Babela who Violation of oath under Lawyers must be mindful that an attorney has no power to act as The Rules of Court under Rule 138,
had two sons, Fernando and Efren. When the agrarian reform law was Rules of Court: counsel for a person without being retained nor may he appear in Section 21 provides for a
enacted, emancipation patents and titles were issued to Hermogena court without being employed unless by leave of court. If an presumption of a lawyer’s
CASE NO.: and Danilo Nipotnipot, beneficiaries of the program, who in turn sold attorney appears on a client’s behalf without a retainer or the appearance on behalf of his client.
AC No 7325 the parcels of land to complainant’s spouse, Raymunda Villahermosa. requisite authority neither the litigant whom he purports to Atty. Caracol knew that Efren had
Section 27, Rule 138 already passed away at the time he
The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) represent nor the adverse party may be bound or affected by his
filed the Motion for Issuance of
DATE OF issued a decision ordering the cancellation of the emancipation patents appearance unless the purported client ratifies or is estopped to
Second Alias Writ of Execution and
PROMULGATION: and TCTs derived from OCT No. 433 stating that it was not covered by deny his assumed authority. If a lawyer corruptly or willfully
Demolition. As an honest, prudent
Jan. 21, 2015 the agrarian reform law. This decision was appealed to and affirmed appears as an attorney for a party to a case without authority, he and conscientious lawyer, he
by the DARAB Central Board and the Court of Appeals. Atty. Caracol, as may be disciplined or punished for contempt as an officer of the should have informed the Court of
PONENTE: “Add’l Counsel for the Plaintiffs-Movant,” filed a motion for execution court who has misbehaved in his official transaction. his client’s passing and presented
Justice Martin with the DARAB, Malaybalay, Bukidnon praying for the full authority that he was retained by
Villarama Jr. implementation of the decision. Atty. Caracol filed a Motion for the client’s successors-in-interest
Issuance of Second Alias Writ of Execution and Demolition which he and thus the parties may have
signed as “Counsel for the Plaintiff Efren Babela.” Villahermosa filed been substituted.
this complaint alleging that Atty. Caracol had no authority to file the Atty. Caracol was found guilty of
motions since he obtained no authority from the plaintiffs and the deceit, gross misconduct and
counsel of record. Villahermosa posited that Efren could not have violation of oath under Section 27,
Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.
authorized Atty. Caracol to file the second motion because Efren had
Consequently, he was suspended
already been dead for more than a year. He claimed that Atty.
from the practice of law for one
Caracol’s real client was a certain Ernesto I. Aguirre, who had allegedly
year.
bought the same parcel of land. Atty. Caracol insists that Efren and
Ernesto authorized him to appear as “additional counsel”. He said that
he had consulted Atty. Aquino who advised him to go ahead with the
filing. Moreover, he stated that he was not aware that there was a
waiver of rights executed in Ernesto Aguirre’s favor. In its Report and
Recommendation, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on
Bar Discipline (IBP CBD) found that Atty. Caracol committed deceitful
acts and misconduct.
452. Topic: Deceitful and false conduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED:
Guarin Vs. Atty.
Limpin Guarin was hired by Mr. Celso G. de los Angeles as Chief Operating
Officer and thereafter as President of OneCard Company, Inc., a
member of the Legacy Group of Companies. He resigned from his
CASE NO.: post. Atty. Limpin, the Corporate Secretary of Legacy Card, Inc. (LCI),
AC No 10576 another corporation under the Legacy Group, filed with the SEC a GIS
for LCI for “updating purposes”. The GIS identified Guarin as Chairman
DATE OF of the Board of Directors (BOD) and President. Mired with allegations
PROMULGATION: of anomalous business transactions and practices, LCI applied for
Jan. 14, 2015 voluntary dissolution with the SEC. Guarin filed this complaint with
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines Commission on Bar Discipline
PONENTE: (IBP CBD) claiming that Atty. Limpin violated Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of
Justice Martin the CPR by knowingly listing him as a stockholder, Chairman of the
Villarama Jr. Board and President of LCI when she knew that he has already
resigned and had never held any share nor was he elected as
chairperson of the BOD or been President of LCI. Atty. Limpin admits
that she filed the GIS with the SEC listing Guarin as a stockholder, the
Chairman of the BOD and President of LCI. She averred that the GIS
was made and submitted in good faith and that her certification
served to attest to the information from the last BOD meeting.
LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Code of Professional Atty. Limpin has violated Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of the Atty. Christine A.C. Limpin was
Responsibility (CPR) and CPR. Members of the bar are reminded that their first duty is to declared GUILTY of violation of
Canon violated the comply with the rules of procedure, rather than seek exceptions Canon 1, Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02
following: as loopholes.19 A lawyer who assists a client in a dishonest of the Code of Professional
scheme or who connives in violating the law commits an act Responsibility and was suspended
which justifies disciplinary action against the lawyer. Disbarment from the practice of law for six (6)
months effective upon finality of
Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 proceedings are sui generis and can proceed independently of
this Decision, with a warning that
civil and criminal cases. As Justice Malcolm stated the serious
a repetition of the same or similar
consequences of disbarment or suspension should follow only act in the future will be dealt with
where there is a clear preponderance of evidence against the more severely.
respondent. The presumption is that the attorney is innocent of
the charges proffered and has performed his duty as an officer of
the court in accordance with his oath.” Grounds for such
administrative action against a lawyer may be found in Section
27,22Rule 138 of the Rules of Court. Among these are (1) the use
of any deceit, malpractice, or other gross misconduct in such
office and (2) any violation of the oath which he is required to
take before the admission to practice. We thus find that in filing a
GIS that contained false information, Atty. Limpin committed an
infraction which did not conform to her oath as a lawyer in
accord with Canon 1 and Rule 1.01 of the CPR.
453. Topic: Gross Negligence and irresponsibility.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Soliman Vs. Atty.
Lerios-Amboy Complainant claimed that she engaged the services of Atty. Amboy on
May 27, 2007 in connection with a partition case. In accordance with
the Retainer Agreement between the parties, Soliman agreed to pay
CASE NO.: Atty. Amboy P50,000.00 as acceptance fee. Upon the latter’s
AC No 10568 engagement, Soliman paid her P25,000.00. Later on, Atty. Amboy
advised Soliman to no longer institute a partition case since the other
DATE OF co-owners of the property were amenable to the partition thereof.
PROMULGATION: Instead, Atty. Amboy just facilitated the issuance of the titles to the
Jan. 13, 2015 said property from the co-owners to the individual owners; the
P25,000.00 already paid to her was then treated as payment for her
PONENTE: professional services. Later, Soliman gave Atty. Amboy P16,700.00 as
Justice Andres B. payment for the transfer tax. In the second quarter of 2009, Atty.
Reyes, Jr. Amboy told Soliman that there was a delay in the issuance of the titles
to the property because of the failure of the other co-owners to
submit certain documents. Atty. Amboy then told Soliman that
someone from the Register of Deeds (RD) can help expedite the
issuance of the titles for a fee of P80,000.00. On June 17, 2009, Atty.
Amboy told Soliman that her contact in the RD agreed to reduce the
amount to P50,000.00. Further, Soliman deposited the amount of
P8,900.00 to Atty. Amboy’s bank account as payment for the real
property tax for the year 2009. Thereafter, Soliman deposited the
amount of P50,000.00 to Atty. Amboy’s bank account as payment for
the latter’s contact in the RD. Later, Atty. Amboy informed Soliman
that the certificates of title to the property were then only awaiting
the signature of the authorized officer. However, Atty. Amboy failed
to deliver the respective certificates of title of Soliman and her co-
owners to the subject property. However, Atty. Amboy’s secretary
informed Soliman that their contact in the RD was asking for an
additional P10,000.00 to facilitate the release of the said certificates
of title. Soliman then refused to further pay. Soliman then asked the
updates on the release of the said title but respondent did not
answer.
454. Topic: Gross misconduct.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Chu Vs. Atty. Guico
Jr. Chu retained Atty. Guico as counsel to handle the labor disputes Violation of the Code of In disbarment proceedings, the burden of proof rests on the Atty. Guico's acts constituted gross
involving his company, CVC San Lorenzo Ruiz Corporation (CVC). For Professional complainant to establish respondent attorney’s liability by clear, dishonesty and deceit, and were a
CASE NO.: several instances, Atty. Guico asked Chu to prepare a substantial Responsibility: convincing and satisfactory evidence. Indeed, this Court has flagrant breach of his ethical
AC No 10573 amount of money to be given to the NLRC Commissioner handling the commitments under the Lawyer’s
consistently required clearly preponderant evidence to justify the
Rule 1.01 Oath not to delay any man for
case to insure a favorable decision. He was able to collect a sum of imposition of either disbarment or suspension as penalty.Chu money or malice; and under Rule
DATE OF Php 580,000.00 but when NLRC promulgated a decision, CVC lost its submitted the affidavits of his witnesses, and presented the draft 1.01 of the Code of Professional
PROMULGATION: case.
decision that Atty. Guico had represented to him as having come Responsibility that forbade him
Jan. 13, 2015 from the NLRC. Chu credibly insisted that the draft decision was from engaging in unlawful,
printed on the dorsal portion of used paper emanating from Atty. dishonest, immoral or deceitful
PONENTE: conduct.
Guico’s office, inferring that Atty. Guico commonly printed
PER CURIAM
documents on used paper in his law office. Despite denying being
the source of the draft decision presented by Chu, Atty. Guico’s
participation in the generation of the draft decision was
undeniable. For one, Atty. Guico impliedly admitted Chu’s
insistence by conceding that the used paper had originated from
his office, claiming only that used paper was just "scattered
around his office." In that context, Atty. Guico’s attempt to
downplay the sourcing of used paper from his office was futile
because he did not expressly belie the forthright statement of
Chu. All that Atty. Guico stated by way of deflecting the
imputation was that the used paper containing the draft decision
could have been easily taken from his office by Chu’s witnesses in
a criminal case that he had handled for Chu, pointing out that
everything in his office, except the filing cabinets and his desk,
was "open to the public and just anybody has access to
everything found therein." In our view, therefore, Atty. Guico
made the implied admission because he was fully aware that the
used paper had unquestionably come from his office.
455. Topic: Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION

Samabahu Vs. Respondent vehemently denied the charge of sexual harassment. On Violation of Re: Rule on The Court finds that Ripdos and Herradura failed to substantiate Judge Cesar O. Untalan is hereby
Ripdos' claim, he presented the following documentary evidence to Administrative Procedure their charges against respondent by the required quantum of EXONERATED of the charges
Judge Untalan prove that on all Fridays of April 2011, except April 22, he conducted against him. The present
in Sexual Harassment proof. While it is true that their affidavits were replete with
hearings on his own court (Branch 149): Cases and Guidelines on details describing the alleged sexual advances, such detailed administrative complaint is
Proper Work Decorum in narration by itself will not suffice and will not automatically result accordingly DISMISSED for lack of
CASE NO.:
In this case, while respondent exercised moral ascendancy over Ripdos the Judiciary: in a guilty verdict. Ripdos never reported the alleged lascivious sufficient factual basis.
AM No. RTJ-13- and Herradura, his subordinates at Branch 145 where he had
acts by respondent to the proper authorities until two years later
2363 temporarily presided as Pairing Judge at the time, the alleged sexual Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-
when the OCA team went to their branch.
advances by respondent were not proven with moral certainty. We 03-13-SC
DATE OF find that the totality of evidence failed to convince that respondent
PROMULGATION: committed the acts imputed against him.
Feb. 25, 2015
For one, SAMABAHU appears to be a non-existent group as Ripdos and
Herradura, and the other female court employees who testified for
PONENTE: respondent, all declared they had not known nor heard about such
Justice Martin organization. This Court has stressed that an anonymous complaint is
Villarama Jr. always received with great caution, originating as it does from an
unknown author. But such nature of the complaint does not always
justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded, as it may
easily be verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated
by other competent evidence. While the herein letter-complaint may
be treated as an anonymous complaint, the Court must still prudently
examine it in the light of all evidence presented.
456. Topic: Sexual harassment.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
AM No. RTJ-13-
Respondent vehemently denied the charge of sexual harassment. On Violation Re: Rule on The Court finds that Ripdos and Herradura failed to substantiate Judge Cesar O. Untalan is hereby
2363, Feb. 25,
Ripdos' claim, he presented the following documentary evidence to Administrative Procedure their charges against respondent by the required quantum of EXONERATED of the charges
2015 Samabahu prove that on all Fridays of April 2011, except April 22, he conducted in Sexual Harassment proof. While it is true that their affidavits were replete with against him. The present
Vs. Judge Untalan hearings on his own court (Branch 149): Cases and Guidelines on details describing the alleged sexual advances, such detailed administrative complaint is
Proper Work Decorum in narration by itself will not suffice and will not automatically result accordingly DISMISSED for lack of
In this case, while respondent exercised moral ascendancy over Ripdos the Judiciary: in a guilty verdict. Ripdos never reported the alleged lascivious sufficient factual basis.
CASE NO.: and Herradura, his subordinates at Branch 145 where he had
acts by respondent to the proper authorities until two years later
temporarily presided as Pairing Judge at the time, the alleged sexual Section 3 of A.M. No. 03-
when the OCA team went to their branch.
DATE OF advances by respondent were not proven with moral certainty. We 03-13-SC
PROMULGATION: find that the totality of evidence failed to convince that respondent
committed the acts imputed against him.
PONENTE:
For one, SAMABAHU appears to be a non-existent group as Ripdos and
Associate Justice Herradura, and the other female court employees who testified for
Martin Villarama respondent, all declared they had not known nor heard about such
Jr. organization. This Court has stressed that an anonymous complaint is
always received with great caution, originating as it does from an
unknown author. But such nature of the complaint does not always
justify its outright dismissal for being baseless or unfounded, as it may
easily be verified and may, without much difficulty, be substantiated
by other competent evidence. While the herein letter-complaint may
be treated as an anonymous complaint, the Court must still prudently
examine it in the light of all evidence presented.
457. Topic: Conflict of interest
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Anglo Vs. Atty.
In his complaint-affidavit, complainant alleged that he availed the Violation of the CPR and The Court clarifies that respondents' pronounced liability is not Respondents Attys. Jose Ma. V.
Valencia
services of the law firm Valencia Ciocon Dabao Valencia De La Paz canon: altered by the fact that the labor cases against complainant had Valencia, Jose Ma. J. Ciocon, Lily
Dionela Pandan Rubica Law Office(law firm), of which Attys. Valencia, long been terminated. Verily, the termination of attorney-client Uy-Valencia, Joey P. De La Paz, Cris
CASE NO.: Ciocon, Dabao, Uy-Valencia, De La Paz, Dionela, Pandan, Jr., and relation provides no justification for a lawyer to represent an G. Dionela, Raymundo T. Pandan,
AM No RTJ-13- Rubica were partners, for two (2) consolidated labor cases where he Canon 15 and Canon 21 interest adverse to or in conflict with that of the former client. Jr., Rodney K. Rubica, and Wilfred
was impleaded as respondent. Atty. Dionela, a partner of the law firm, Rule 15.03 The client's confidence once reposed should not be divested by Ramon M. Penalosa are found
2363
was assigned to represent complainant. The labor cases were mere expiration of professional employment. GUILTY of representing conflicting
terminated on June 5, 2008 upon the agreement of both parties interests in violation of Rule 15.03,
DATE OF
Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the
PROMULGATION: On September 18, 2009, a criminal case or qualified theft was filed
Code of Professional Responsibility
Feb. 25, 2015 against complainant and his wife by FEVE Farms Agricultural
and are therefore REPRIMANDED
Corporation (FEVE Farms) acting through a certain Michael Villacorta
for said violations, with a STERN
PONENTE: (Villacorta). Villacorta, however, was represented by the law firm, the
WARNING that a repetition of the
Associate Justice same law office which handled complainant’s labor cases. Aggrieved,
same or similar infraction would
Estela Perlas- complainant filed this disbarment case against respondents, alleging
be dealt with more severely.
Bernabe that they violated Rule 15.03, Canon 15 and Canon 21 of the CPR.
Meanwhile, the case against Atty.
Philip Dabao is DISMISSED in view
of his death.
458. Topic: Petition for certiorari.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
DENR Vs. UPCI
On July 26, 1993, petitioner, through the Land Management Bureau Violation of CPR: It found no merit in petitioner’s contention that it was denied due Rules of Court cannot be applied
CASE NO.: (LMB), entered into an Agreement for Consultancy Services process, ruling that its May 19, 2010 Motion for Reconsideration suppletorily to the ADR Rules
AC No. 10558 (Consultancy Agreement) with respondent United Planners was a prohibited pleading under Section 17.2, Rule 17 of the CIAC Execution is fittingly called the fruit
Consultants, Inc. (respondent) in connection with the LMB’s Land Rule 19.28 in relation to Rules. It explained that the available remedy to assail an arbitral and end of suit and the life of the
DATE OF Resource Management Master Plan Project (LRMMP). Petitioner was Rule 19.8 award was to file a motion for correction of final award pursuant law. A judgment, if left
PROMULGATION: able to pay only 47% of the total contract price. For failure to pay its to Section 17.1 of the CIAC Rules, and not a motion for unexecuted, would be nothing but
Feb. 23,2015 obligation under the Consultancy Agreement despite repeated reconsideration of the said award itself. On the other hand, the an empty victory for the prevailing
demands, respondent instituted a Complaint against petitioner before RTC found petitioner’s June 1, 2010 Manifestation and Motion party. While it appears that the
PONENTE: the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. Upon motion of respondent, seeking the resolution of its May 19, 2010 Motion for Special ADR Rules remain silent on
Associate Justice the case was subsequently referred to arbitration pursuant to the Reconsideration to be defective for petitioner’s failure to observe the procedure for the execution of
Estela Perlas- arbitration clause of the Consultancy Agreement, which petitioner did the three day notice rule. Having then failed to avail of the a confirmed arbitral award, it is the
not oppose. During the preliminary conference, the parties remedies attendant to an order of confirmation, the Arbitral Court’s considered view that the
Bernabe
agreed to adopt the CIAC Revised Rules Governing Construction Award had become final and executor. Rules’ procedural mechanisms
Arbitration (CIAC Rules) to govern the arbitration proceedings. They cover not only aspects of
further agreed to submit their respective draft decisions in lieu of confirmation but necessarily
memoranda of arguments on or before April 21, 2010, among others. extend to a confirmed award’s
On the due date for submission of the draft decisions, however, only execution in light of the doctrine of
respondent complied with the given deadline. The Arbitral Tribunal necessary implication which states
rendered its Award dated May 7, 2010 (Arbitral Award) in favor of that every statutory grant of
respondent, directing petitioner to pay. Unconvinced, petitioner filed a power, right or privilege is deemed
motion for reconsideration, which the Arbitral Tribunal merely noted to include all incidental power,
without any action, claiming that it had already lost jurisdiction over right or privilege.
the case after it had submitted to the RTC its Report together with a
copy of the Arbitral Award. In an Order dated March 30, 2011, the RTC
merely noted petitioner’s aforesaid motions The RTC confirmed the
Arbitral Award. From this order, petitioner did not file a motion for
reconsideration. Thus, on June 15, 2011, respondent moved for the
issuance of a writ of execution, to which no comment/opposition was
filed by petitioner despite the RTC’s directive therefor. In an Order
dated September 12, 2011, the RTC granted respondent’s motion.
459. Topic: Grave misconduct.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Nate Vs. Judge
Contreras Respondent Contreras allegedly notarized an administrative complaint Violation of The Court has, in the past, sanctioned judges and clerks of court WHEREFORE, respondent Judge
that was prepared by her own father and filed with this Court Administrative Code of for notarizing – as ex officio notaries public – documents that Lelu P. Contreras is found LIABLE
sometime in June 2003.5 Complainant Nate stresses that respondent 1987 in relation to the were later found to be unconnected with the exercise of their for the unauthorized notarization
CASE NO.: could not have legally notarized a document. He points out that 2002 Revised Manual for official functions and duties. In Astorga v. Salas, the Court fined a of documents unrelated to her
AM No. RTJ-15- Section 3, Rule 4 of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice disqualifies Clerks of Court. clerk of court in the amount of ₱5,000 for notarizing several office duties while she was serving
2406 notaries from performing a notarial act if they are related to the documents and administering oaths involving matters unrelated as Clerk of Court VI of the Regional
principal within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity. to her official duties. In Cruz v. Centron, we imposed a fine on the Trial Court in Iriga City. She is
DATE OF Furthermore, he argues that respondent acted beyond her authority clerk of court who notarized one document – a deed of sale – but hereby REPRIMANDED, with a
PROMULGATION: when she notarized in Iriga City a document that was signed in the the fine was in the lower amount of ₱2,000, since the act was her WARNING that a repetition of the
Feb. 18, 2015 Municipality of Buhi, which was outside that city. We note that first offense. All of them were given a stern warning that a same or a similar act in the future
complainant was the subject of the administrative complaint filed by repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with by will be dealt with more severely.
PONENTE: respondent’s father. the Court more severely. Considering, however, that the
Chief Justice Ma. documents notarized by respondent Contreras do not involve a
Lourdes Sereno private or commercial undertaking, and that this is the first time
Complainant Nate claims that respondent certified a document as a that she has been charged, we agree with the recommendation of
true copy of the original, and that her sister-in-law later on used the the OCA that the penalty of reprimand, instead of a fine, is more
certified document in a labor case then pending with the National appropriate under the circumstances.
Labor Relations Commission in Naga City.6 He points out that
respondent, as an ex officio notary public, was empowered to
authenticate only those documents that were in her custody. Since the
document – an amended labor complaint – was not a document
pending before the RTC–Iriga City, respondent allegedly went beyond
her authority when she authenticated it.

Purportedly without this Court’s prior written authority, respondent

Contreras appeared as her father’s counsel before the Commission on
Bar Discipline of the IBP.7 Complainant Nate alleges that respondent
herself admitted during the proceedings before the IBP that she had
not yet obtained a written authority.
460. Topic: Disciplinary action.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Bernardino Vs.
Atty. Santos Complainant Roberto C. Bernardino filed a Letter-Complaint against Violation of the Code of The Court emphasizes that the practice of law is imbued with Atty. Victor Rey Santos found
Atty. Victor Rey Santos before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Professional public interest and that "a lawyer owes substantial duties not only guilty of violating Canon 15, Rule
praying that Atty. Santos be investigated and subjected to disciplinary Responsibility and Canon: to his client, but also to his brethren in the profession, to the 15.03 and Canon 10, Rule 10.01 of
CASE NO.: action. Bernardino alleged that the death certificate of his aunt, Rufina the Code of Professional
courts, and to the nation, and takes part in one of the most
AC No. 10583 de Castro Turla, was falsified by Atty. Santos. Atty. Santos made it Responsibility. The findings of fact
appear that Rufina Turla died in 1992, when in fact, she died in 1990. important functions of the State—the administration of justice— and recommendations of the
Canon 10, Rule 10.01 as an officer of the court." Accordingly, "lawyers are bound to Board of Governors of the
DATE OF Canon 15, Rule 15 .03 maintain
He alleged that Atty. Santos used the falsified death certificate to Integrated Bar of the Philippines
PROMULGATION: support the Affidavit of Self- Adjudication executed by Mariano Turla, dated May 10, 2013 and March 22,
Feb. 18, 2015 husband of Rufina Turla, which states: Being her surviving spouse, I am 2014 are ACCEPTED and ADOPTED
the sole legal heir entitled to succeed to and inherit the estate of said with the MODIFICATION that the
PONENTE: deceased who did not penalty of suspension from the
Associate Justice leave any descendant or any other heir entitled to her estate. practice of law for one (1) year is
Marvic Leonen imposed upon Atty. Victor Rey
As regards the issue on conflict of interest, Atty. Santos argued that he Santos. He is warned that a
did not represent and was not representing conflicting interests since repetition of the same or similar
Mariano Turla was already dead. Further, “he [was] representing act shall be dealt with more
Marilu Turla against those who ha[d] an interest in her father’s severely.
estate.” Mariano Turla’s Affidavit of Self- adjudication never stated
that there was no other legal heir but only “that Mariano Turla was
the sole heir of Rufina Turla.” Atty. Santos insisted that he did not
commit forum shopping because the various cases filed had different
issues. As to the conversion of funds, Atty. Santos explained that the
funds used were being held by his client as the special administratrix
of the estate of Mariano Turla. According to Atty. Santos, payment of
attorney’s fees out of the estate’s funds could be considered as
“expenses of administration.”
461. Topic: Gross ignorance of the law and gross inefficiency.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sin Vs. Judge
Mangente On April 9, 2013, complainant Chua Keng Sin Section 18 of The Court with the Office of the Court Judge Job M.
executed a Complaint-Affidavit stating that the 1991 Administrator’s finding that the Mangente, Presiding
CASE NO.: respondent Judge Job M. Mangente’s violation Revised Rules Complaint against respondent is Judge of Branch 54 of
AM No. MTJ-15-
1851
of the Local Government Code’s provisions on Summary meritorious. Upon thorough evaluation the Metropolitan
on Katarungang Pambarangay, Section 18 of Procedure, and of the parties’ respective arguments, theTrial Court, Navotas
DATE OF the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary City, is guilty of gross
PROMULGATION: Rule 37, Section Office of the Court Administrator found
Feb. 11, 2015 Procedure, and Rule 37, Section 4 of the ignorance of the law
4 of the Revised that respondent should be held
Revised Rules of Court denied him of his right and is hereby
PONENTE: Rules of Court administratively liable for gross
Associate Justice to the speedy disposition of his SUSPENDED FROM
ignorance of the law and delay. SERVICE FOR SIX (6)
Marvic Leonen case. Complainant asserts that the laws and
rules that respondent failed to apply are so Due to the procedural carelessness MONTHS, with a
basic and elementary, their violation exhibited by respondent in Criminal Case warning that a
constituted gross ignorance of the law and No. 10-13570, the penalty imposed repetition of the
gross inefficiency. should be increased to suspension of six same or similar act
shall be dealt with
(6) months.
more severely.
462. Topic: Gross Negligence and breach of duty.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Anudon Vs. Atty.
Cefra Complainants Jimmy Anudon and Juanita Anudon are Violation of the Rules The thus find that the penalty recommended against Atty. Arturo B. Cefra GUILTY
brother- and sister-in-law. Complainants , along with of Court: Atty. Cefra should be modified to take into account all of notarizing the Deed of
Jimmy’s brothers and sister, co-own a 4,446 square meter his acts of misconduct. Absolute Sale dated August
CASE NO.: Rule 138, Section 27,
parcel of land located in Sison, Pangasinan. Atty. Cefra 12, 1998 in the absence of
AC No. 5482 paragraph 1
notarized a Deed of Absolute Sale over a land owned by the affiants, as well as failure
DATE OF the complainants. The names of petitioners appeared as to comply with an order
PROMULGATION: from this court. Accordingly,
vendors, while the name of Celino Paran, Jr. appeared as
Feb. 10, 2015 this court SUSPENDS him
the vendee. The complainants claimed that the Deed of
from the practice of law for
PONENTE: Absolute Sale was falsified. They alleged that they did not two (2) years, REVOKES his
Associate Justice sign it before Atty. Cefra. The National Bureau of incumbent notarial
Marvic Leonen Investigation’s Questioned Documents Division certified commission, if any, and
that Jimmy and Juanita’s signatures were forged. This was PERPETUALLY DISQUALIFIES
contrary to Atty. Cefra’s acknowledgment over the him from being
document. Moreover, it was physically impossible for commissioned as a notary
Jimmy’s brothers and sister to have signed the document public. Respondent is also
because they were somewhere else at that time. Due to STERNLY WARNED that more
the forgery of the Deed of Absolute Sale, the Assistant severe penalties will be
Prosecutor, with Jimmy and Juanita as witness, filed a case imposed for any further
breach of the Canons in the
of falsification of public document against Atty. Cefra and
Code of Professional
Paran.
Responsibility.
463. Topic: Grave misconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Tormis Vs. Judge
Paredes Jill charged Judge Paredes with grave misconduct. Jill was a student of Section 4, Canon 3 of the Yes. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations of
Judge Paredes in Political Law Review. She averred that in his class New Code of Judicial Justice Diy except as to the penalty.
discussions, Judge Paredes named her mother, Judge Rosabella Tormis Conduct and Sections 1
CASE NO.: (Judge Tormis),then Presiding Judge of Branch 4, Municipal Trial Court and 2, Canon 2 of the
AM No, RTJ-13- in Cities (MTCC),Cebu City, as one of the judges involved in the Code mandates.
2366 marriage scams in Cebu City. Judge Paredes also mentioned in his class
that Judge Tormis was abusive of her position as a judge, corrupt, and
DATE OF ignorant of the law Judge Paredes further stated that when Jill was still
PROMULGATION: his student, she did not complain about or dispute his discussions in
Feb. 4, 2015 class regarding the administrative liabilities of her mother Reply of the
Complainant In her Verified-Reply,8 dated November 23, 2011, Jill
PONENTE: countered that her mother had nothing to do with the filing of the
Associate Justice complaint; that she was forced to leave her family in Cebu City to
Jose C. Mendoza continue her law studies elsewhere because she could no longer bear
the discriminating and judgmental eyes of her classmates brought
about by Judge Paredes’ frequent discussions in class of her mother’s
administrative cases Jill claimed that the intention to humiliate her
family was evident when Judge Paredes branded her brother, Francis,
as a "drug addict." Rejoinder of Judge Paredes In his Rejoinder, dated
December 2, 2011, Judge Paredes asserted that it was not premature
to discuss the marriage scams in class because the scandal was already
disclosed by Atty. Rullyn Garcia and was also written in many legal
publications, and that the drug addiction of Francis was known in the
Palace of Justice of Cebu City. In its Report,1 dated September 12,
2012, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) stated that the
conflicting allegations by the parties presented factual issues that
could not be resolved based on the evidence on record then.
Considering the gravity and the sensitive nature of the charges, a full-
blown investigation should be conducted by the CA.
464. Topic: Betrayal of trust, incompetence, and gross misconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sps. Umaguing
Vs. Atty. De Mariecris Umaguing the daughter of herein Violation of the The Court, in the case of Samonte v. Atty. The Supreme Court
Vera petitioner ran for SK Chairman last 2007 election. Code of Abellana (Samonte), suspended the lawyer found Atty. De Vera
Unfortunately she lose by one (1) vote. The herein Professional therein from the practice of law for six (6) guilty for violating Canon
CASE NO.:
petitioner enlisted Atty. De Vera to facilitate the Responsibility and months for filing a spurious document in court. 10 of Code of
AM No. RTJ- election protest. However Atty. De Vera filed the Canon: In view of the antecedents in this case, the Professional
12-2366 case when the deadline was looming. Failure to Court finds it appropriate to impose the same Responsibility as well as
Rule 10.01
find Lachica and Almira, who was the prospect here. the lawyer’s oath. He is
DATE OF Canon 10
witness. Atty. De Vera let their relative signed suspended to practice
PROMULGATION:
Feb. 4, 2015 their affidavit. He then included the affidavit to law for six (6) months.
the complaint and lending such document was
PONENTE:
According to the
true.
PER CURIAM Supreme Court, a lawyer
shall not do falsehood
nor consent to the doing
of any in court.
465. Topic: Homicide involving moral turpitude.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Garcia Vs.
Sesbreño Garcia filed a complaint for disbarment against Sesbreño before the Violation of the Rules of The Court found Sesbreño guilty of homicide. Raul H. Sesbrefio is DISBARRED
Office of the Bar Confidant. Court: effective immediately upon his
receipt of this Decision.
CASE NO.:
AC No. 7973 and Garcia alleged that in 2005 while he was in Japan, Sesbreño, Section 27, Rule 138
AC No. 10456 representing Maria Margarita and Angie Ruth, filed an action for
support against him and his sister Milagros Garcia Soliman. At the time
DATE OF of the filing of the case, Maria Margarita was already 39 years old
PROMULGATION: while Angie Ruth was 35 years old. The case was dismissed. In 2007,
Feb. 3, 2015 Garcia returned from Japan. When Sesbreño and Garcia’s children
learned about his return, Sesbreño filed a Second Amended Complaint
PONENTE: against him.
PER CURIAM

Garcia alleged that he learned that Sesbreño was convicted by the

Regional Trial Court of Cebu City, Branch 18, for Homicide in Criminal
Case No. CBU-31733. Garcia alleged that Sesbreño is only on parole.
Garcia alleged that homicide is a crime against moral turpitude; and
thus, Sesbreño should not be allowed to continue his practice of law.

In his answer to the complaint, Sesbreño alleged that his sentence was
commuted and the phrase “with the inherent accessory penalties
provided by law” was deleted. Sesbreño argued that even if the
accessory penalty was not deleted, the disqualification applies only
during the term of the sentence. Sesbreño further alleged that
homicide does not involve moral turpitude. Sesbreño claimed that
Garcia’s complaint was motivated by extreme malice, bad faith, and
desire to retaliate against him for representing Garcia’s daughters in
court.
466. Topic: Gross misconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sps. Concepcion
Vs. Atty. Dela Rosa This is an administrative case that stemmed from a Verified Complaint Violation of the Code of The Court concurs with the IBP’s findings except as to its Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa is found
filed by complainants Spouses Henry A. Concepcion (Henry) and Professional recommended penalty and its directive to return the amount of guilty of violating Canon 7 and Rule
Blesilda S. Concepcion (Blesilda; collectively complainants) against Responsibility: P2,500,000.00, with legal interest, to complainants. 16.04, Canon 16 of the Code of
CASE NO.: respondent Atty. Elmer A. dela Rosa (respondent), charging him with Professional Responsibility.
AC No. 10681 gross misconduct for violating, among others, Rule 16.04 of the Code Accordingly, he is hereby
of Professional Responsibility (CPR). Complainants alleged that from SUSPENDED from the practice of
Rule 16.04 law for a period of three (3) years
DATE OF 1997 until August 2008, respondent served as their retained lawyer
effective upon finality of this
PROMULGATION: and counsel. In this capacity, respondent handled many of their cases
Decision, with a stern warning that
Feb. 3, 2015 and was consulted on various legal matters, among others, the a commission of the same or
prospect of opening a pawnshop business towards the end of 2005. similar acts will be dealt with more
PONENTE: Said business, however, failed to materialize. Aware of the fact that severely.
Associate Justice complainants had money intact from their failed business venture,
Estela Perlas- respondent, on March 23, 2006, called Henry to borrow money. The
Bernabe checks were personally encashed by respondent. Demanded the
return of payment but failed to do so. Respondent denied borrowing
P2,500,000.00 from complainants, insisting that Nault was the real
debtor.18 He also claimed that complainants had been attempting to
collect from Nault and that he was engaged for that specific purpose.

In fine, the Investigating Commissioner of the IBP concluded that

respondent’s actions degraded the integrity of the legal profession and
clearly violated Rule 16.04 and Canons 7 and 16 of the CPR.
Respondent’s failure to appear during the mandatory conferences
further showed his disrespect to the IBP-CBD. Accordingly, the
Investigating Commissioner recommended that respondent be
disbarred and that he be ordered to return the P2,500,000.00 to
complainants, with stipulated interest.
467. Topic: Gross Negligence.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Ramirez Vs. Atty.
Buhayang- Complainant Reynaldo Ramirez (Ramirez) engaged Atty. Margallo’s Violation of the Code of The court is not without jurisdiction to increase the penalties Yes, Atty. Mercedes Buhayang-
services as legal counsel in a civil case for Quieting of Title entitled Professional imposed in order to address a current need in the legal Margallo’s (Atty. Margallo)
Margallo
“Spouses Roque v. Ramirez.” According to Ramirez, Atty. Margallo Responsibility and canon: profession. The desire of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to inaction resulted in a lost appeal,
contacted him as per a referral from a friend of Ramirez’s sister. He ensure a higher ethical standard for its members’ conduct is terminating the case of her client
alleged that Atty. Margallo had offered her legal services on the Canon 17 and Canon 18,
CASE NO.: laudable. The negligence of respondent Atty. Margallo coupled not on the merits but due to her
condition that she be given 30% of the land subject of the controversy Rules 18.03 and 18.04
AC No. 10537 with her lack of candor is reprehensible. negligence. She made it appear
instead of attorney’s fees. It was also agreed upon that Ramirez would
that the case was dismissed on the
pay Atty. Margallo P1,000.00 per court appearance.
DATE OF merits when, in truth, she failed to
On October 19, 2006, the Regional Trial Court promulgated a Decision
PROMULGATION: adverse to Ramirez. Atty. Margallo advised him to appeal the file the Appellant’s Brief on time.
Feb. 3, 2015 judgment. She committed to file the Appeal before the Court of She did not discharge her duties of
Appeals. The Appeal was perfected and the records were sent to the candor to her client.
PONENTE: Court of Appeals sometime in 2008. On December 5, 2008, the Court
Respondent Atty. Margallo was
Associate Justice of Appeals directed Ramirez to file his Appellant’s Brief. Ramirez
notified Atty. Margallo, who replied that she would have one unjustifiably remiss in her duties as
Marvic Leonen legal counsel to Ramirez. The lack
prepared.
On January 8, 2009, Ramirez contacted Atty. Margallo to follow up on of communication and
the Appellant’s Brief. Atty. Margallo informed him that he needed to coordination between respondent
meet her to sign the documents necessary for the brief. On several Atty. Margallo and her client was
occasions, Ramirez followed up on the status of the brief, but he was palpable but was not due to the
told that there was still no word from the Court of Appeals. lack of diligence of her client. This
On August 26, 2009, Atty. Margallo informed Ramirez that his Appeal cost complainant Ramirez his
had been denied. She told him that the Court of Appeals’ denial was entire case and left him with no
due to Ramirez’s failure to establish his filiation with his alleged father, appellate remedies. His legal
which was the basis of his claim. She also informed him that they cause was orphaned not because a
could no longer appeal to this court since the Decision of the Court of court of law ruled on the merits of
Appeals had been promulgated and the reglementary period for filing his case, but because a person
an Appeal had already lapsed. Ramirez went to the Court of Appeals. privileged to act as counsel failed
There, he discovered that the Appellant’s Brief was filed on April 13, to discharge her duties with the
2009 with a Motion for Reconsideration and Apologies for filing requisite diligence. Her
beyond the reglementary period. assumption that complainant
Ramirez was no longer interested.
468. Topic: Gross Negligence.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Andres Vs. Atty.
Nambi The respondents in the labor case, namely the Spouses Mercado, Violation of the Code of The Court reprimands respondent Atty. Salimathar V. The Petition for Review is
doing business under the name and style of M.A. Mercado Professional Nambi for obstinately and unjustifiably refusing to obey DENIED. The Recommendations
Construction, interposed an appeal which was dismissed for failure to Responsibility and canon: and Resolution of the Board of
lawful orders of the Court and the Integrated Bar of the
CASE NO.: post an appeal bond. Thus, an Alias Writ of Execution was issued to Governors of the Integrated Bar of
Canon 17 and Canon 18, Philippines, with a warning that a repetition of the same or the Philippines dated March 21,
AC No. 7158 implement the Decision.
Rules 18.03 and 18.04 similar act or offense shall be dealt with more severely. 2014 is ACCEPTED, ADOPTED AND
Thereafter, the complainants in the labor case filed an Ex Parte Motion AFFIRMED. Atty. Mercedes
DATE OF
for Amendment of an Alias Writ of Execution. They claimed that they Buhayang-Margallo is
PROMULGATION: hereby SUSPENDED from the
could hardly collect the judgment award from M.A. Mercado
March 9, 2015 practice of law for two (2) years,
Construction because it allegedly transferred its assets to M.A. Blocks
Work, Inc. They thus prayed that the Alias Writ of Execution be with a stern warning that a
PONENTE: repetition of the same or similar
amended to include M.A. Blocks Work, Inc. and all its
Associate act shall be dealt with more
incorporators/stockholders as additional entity/personalities against
Justice Mariano severely. This decision is
which the writ of execution shall be enforced. immediately executed.
C. del Castillo
In an Order dated February 10, 2006, respondent granted the motion
to amend the alias writ of execution. Accordingly, on February 17,
2006 an Amended Alias Writ of Execution was issued to enforce the
monetary judgment amounting to P19,527,623.55 against M.A. Blocks
Work, Inc. and all its incorporators.

By way of special appearance, M.A. Blocks Work, Inc., together with

three of its stockholders who are the complainants in this
administrative case, namely Yolanda A. Andres, Minette A. Mercado
and Elito P. Andres, filed an Urgent Motion to Quash8 the Amended
Alias Writ of Execution, contending that they are not bound by the
judgment as they were not parties to the labor case. In an Order dated
March 13, 2006, however, respondent denied the Urgent Motion to
Quash.

Aggrieved, herein complainants filed the instant Complaint for

Disbarment, which we referred to the IBP on March 4, 2007 for
investigation, report and recommendation.
469. Topic: Gross immorality.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Perez Vs. Atty.
Catindig Atty. Tristan A. Catindig admitted to Dr. Elmar Perez that he was Violation of the Code of The Court likewise agrees with the Investigating Commissioner The Court resolves to ADOPT the
already wed to Lily Corazon Gomez. Atty. Catindig told Dr. Perez that Professional that there is a dearth of evidence to prove the claimed amorous recommendations of the
he was in the process of obtaining a divorce in a foreign country to Responsibility and canon: relationship between the respondents. As it is, the evidence that Commission on Bar Discipline of
CASE NO.: dissolve his marriage to Gomez, and that he would eventually marry was presented by Dr. Perez to prove her claim was mere the Integrated Bar of the
Rule 1.01, Canon 7 Philippines. Atty. Tristan A.
AC No. 5816 her once the divorce had been decreed. Consequently, sometime in allegation, an anonymous letter informing her that the
1984, Atty. Catindig and Gomez obtained a divorce decree from the respondents were indeed having an affair and the purported love Catindig is found GUILTY of gross
Rule 7.03 immorality and of violating the
DATE OF Dominican Republic. letter to Atty. Baydo that was signed by Atty. Catindig.
Lawyer’s Oath and Rule 1.01,
PROMULGATION: Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 of the Code
Sometime in 2001, Dr. Perez alleged that she received an anonymous
March 10, 2015 The Court has consistently held that in suspension or disbarment of Professional Responsibility and
letter in the mail informing her of Atty. Catindig’s scandalous affair
proceedings against lawyers, the lawyer enjoys the presumption is hereby DISBARRED from the
with Atty. Baydo, and that sometime later, she came upon a love letter
PONENTE: of innocence, and the burden of proof rests upon the complainant practice of law.
written and signed by Atty. Catindig for Atty. Baydo dated April 25,
PER CURIAM to prove the allegations in his complaint. The evidence required in
2001. In the said letter, Atty. Catindig professed his love to Atty.
suspension or disbarment proceedings is preponderance of
Baydo, promising to marry her once his “impediment is removed.”
evidence.
On October 31, 2001, Atty. Catindig abandoned Dr. Perez and their
son; he moved to an upscale condominium in Salcedo Village, Makati
City where Atty. Baydo was frequently seen.

Atty. Catindig, in his Comment, admitted that he married Gomez on

May 18, 1968. He claimed, however, that immediately after the
wedding, Gomez showed signs that she was incapable of complying
with her marital obligations. Eventually, their irreconcilable
differences led to their de facto separation in 1984.

Atty. Catindig claimed that Dr. Perez knew of the foregoing, including
the fact that the divorce decreed by the Dominican Republic court
does not have any effect in the Philippines.

Atty. Catindig claimed that his relationship with Dr. Perez turned sour.
Eventually, he left their home in October 2001 to prevent any
acrimony from developing.
470. Topic: Attempted murder.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Caspe Vs. Atty.
Mejica A complaint for disbarment was filed by PO1 Jose B. Caspe against Violation of the Code of The Court hold that Atty. Mejica further violated Canon 11 of the Atty. Mejica further violated Canon
Atty. Aquilino A. Mejica for alleged violation of Code of Professional Professional CPR which calls for a lawyer to observe and give due respect to 1145 of the CPR which calls for a
Responsibility (CPR) specifically Rules 1.03, 1.04, and 10.01. Responsibility: courts and judicial officers. lawyer to observe and give due
CASE NO.: Petitioner’s Contention: Caspe alleged the controversy started when respect to courts and judicial
AC No. 10679 Atty. Mejica disregarded conflict of interest rules. Caspe said that officers. The Supreme Court
when he filed a complaint for attempted murder against Antonio Rules 1.03, 1.04, and adopts the findings of the IBP but
DATE OF Rodriguez, Jr., Atty. Mejica served as Caspe’s counsel. When 10.01 modify the penalty imposed. The
PROMULGATION: Rodriguez, Jr. filed his counter-affidavit, it was Atty. Mejica who IBP CBD concluded that there
March 10, 2015 counseled and represented him. Caspe brought separate suits for could be no other reason for Atty.
damages and disbarment: one for conflict of interest and the present Mejica to file the cases against PO1
PONENTE: complaint. Atty. Mejica tried to negotiate a settlement Caspe other than to get back at
Associate Justice but Caspe refused. Atty. Mejica allegedly then threatened Caspe that him. The High Court agrees that
Martrin S. “he will help file cases after cases against the complainant until he the confluence of circumstances
Villarama kneels before him. PO1 Onofre Lopeña points to Atty. Mejica’s corrupt
responded. They recovered a caliber 0.357 revolver which was turned motive in helping Gaduena in filing
over to the Can-avid Police station. The incident was recorded in the cases against Caspe, in violation of
police blotter. Gaduena evaded arrest with the help of barangay Rules 1.03, 1.04 and 10.01 of the
captain Prudencio Agda and other barangay tanods who allegedly CPR. With respect to Atty. Mejica’s
clobbered Caspe and took his gun. In the interest of peace and claim that he was not afforded due
harmony, the Chief of Police called and requested that Caspe desist process, i.e., he was not able to
from filing charges against the barangay captain and tanods, receive a copy of a complaint
specifically Gaduena.Caspe acceded. However, Gaduena, with Atty. which in turn was the reason for
Mejica as counsel, filed a complaint for serious slander by deed against him not to have attended the
Caspe, which was supported by a joint affidavit of mandatory conference, This
two barangay tanods. It was alleged that Caspe kicked, collared and contention is untenable.
slapped Gaduena’s face.
471. Topic: Willful disobedience.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Feliciano Vs. Atty.
Bautista-Lozada Alvin Feliciano filed an injunction and TRO against Atty. Carmencita Violation of the Rules of The Court en banc promulgated a Resolution in A.C. No. 6656 Atty. Carmencita Bautista Lozada is
Bautista – Lozada in representing his husband Edilberto Lozada in the Court: entitled “Bobie Rose V. Frias vs. Atty. Carmencita Bautista hereby found guilty of violating
latter’s case against the complainant on June 5, 2007. Feliciano alleged Lozada” suspending Atty. Lozada for violation of Rules 15.03 and Rules 15.03 and 16.04 of the Code
CASE NO.: Rule 1.01, 1.02 and Rule of Professional Responsibility and
that Atty. Bautista – Lozada appeared as a counsel for his husband and 16.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
18.01 of willfully disobeying a final and
AC No. 7593 actively participated in the court proceedings while she is still
suspended from the practice of law in reference to a court judgment executory decision of the Court of
Section 27, Rule 138 Appeals. She is
DATE OF on December 15, 2005. Feliciano argued that the act of the
hereby SUSPENDED from the
PROMULGATION: respondent constitutes willful disobedience to a court order. In her
practice of law for a period of two
March 11, 2015 reply, Atty Bautista – Lozada claims that she was only forced by the (2) years from notice, with a STERN
situation that she needed to defend the right of his husband who is WARNING that a repetition of the
PONENTE: embroiled in a legal dispute. She believes that since she is same or similar acts will be dealt
Justice Diosdado representing his husband and not a client, it is not within the with more severely.
Peralta prohibition of the law. The case was referred to the IBP for
investigation and the IBP Investigating Officer recommended
disbarment for Atty. Bautista – Lozada in violation of Rule 1.01, 1.02
and Rule 18.01 of the CPR. The IBP-BOG adopted the recommendation
with modification to suspension of only 3 months.
472. Topic: Deceitful and dishonest conduct.

CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Sps. Amatorio Vs.
Atty. Dy Yap The complainants said that they are clients of Atty. Paras in cases Violation of the Code of The Court notes that on September 16, 2011, the complainants The answer is in the negative. The
which were filed against them by the respondents to compel them to Professional filed a Motion to Admit Judicial Affidavit with Motion to Dismiss Supreme Court ruled that Atty.
pay their indebtedness. At the time of the filing of the answer, Atty. Responsibility: and/or Withdraw Complaint,21 reiterating their claim that the Francisco Dy Yap is SUSPENDED
CASE NO.: Paras was suspended from the practice of law. filing of the disbarment was a product of Atty. Paras’ from the practice of law for a
Complainants decided to seek an out-of-court settlement and asked Rules 1.01, 7.03, 10.01, period of three (3) months for
AC No. 5914 maneuverings and that the allegations against the respondents
that they be allowed to pay their obligations by way of installment. 10.02 and 10.03 deliberately misleading the Court.
stated therein were false.
The parties agreed on the terms. When Aida asked the respondents if It bears stressing that membership
DATE OF After a careful examination of the facts of this case, the Court
they should still attend the pre-trial conference scheduled, the latter in the bar is a privilege burdened
PROMULGATION: told them they need not attend anymore as they will be moving for
finds no compelling reason to deviate from the resolution of the
with conditions. It is bestowed
March 11, 2015 the dismissal of the cases. Subsequently, they were surprised to IBP Board of Governors. upon individuals who are not only
receive copies of the decisions of the trial court declaring them in Notably, the respondents seek a reconsideration of the learned in law, but also known to
PONENTE: default for non-appearance. The decision however did not mention resolutions of the IBP Board of Governors primarily on the basis of possess good moral character.
Associate Justice the out-of-court settlement between the parties. the Judicial Affidavit dated August 9, 2007, wherein the Lawyers should act and comport
Bienvenido Reyes complainants cleared them of the charges of misconduct and themselves with honesty and
turned the blame on their own counsel, Atty. Paras, for allegedly integrity in a manner beyond
having made up the allegations in the disbarment complaint. reproach, in order to promote the
When the IBP Board of Governors sustained the imposition of public’s faith in the legal
suspension to Francisco, the complainants themselves submitted profession.
a motion to admit the said judicial affidavit to this Court, together It is for the foregoing reason that
the Court cannot simply yield to
with a motion to dismiss and withdraw complaint.
complainants’ change of heart by
refuting their own statements
against the respondents and
praying that the complaint for
disbarment they filed be
dismissed. It bears emphasizing
that any misconduct on the part of
the lawyer not only hurts the
client’s cause but is even more
disparaging on the integrity of the
legal.
473. Topic: Falsifying a court order.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION

Torres Vs. Atty. In their sworn complaint for disbarment dated April 23, 2009 (later Violation of the Rules of The Court DISMISSES the baseless disbarment complaints against Well entrenched in this jurisdiction
Tolentino docketed as A.C. No. 8261), the complainants narrated that as the Court and canon: Atty. Federico S. Tolentino, Jr., Atty. Renato G. Cunanan, Atty. is the rule that a lawyer may be
surviving children of the late Spouses Antonio and Nemesia Torres, Daniel F. Victoria, Jr., Atty. Elbert T. Quilala and Atty. Constante P. disciplined for misconduct
Canon 7
CASE NO. they inherited upon the deaths of their parents a residential lot Caluya, Jr. committed either in his
located at No. 251 Boni Serrano Street, Murphy, Cubao, Quezon City Section 27, Rule 138 professional or private capacity.
AC Nos. registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT- The test is whether his conduct
8261/8725 64333(35652) of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City; that on August shows him to be wanting in moral
24, 2006, they discovered that TCT No. RT-64333(35652) had been character, honesty, probity, and
DATE OF unlawfully cancelled and replaced by TCT No. N-290546 of the Register good demeanor, or whether his
PROMULGATION: of Deeds of Quezon City under the names of Ramon and Josefina conduct renders him unworthy to
March 11, 2015 Ricafort; and that, accordingly, they immediately caused the continue as an officer of the Court.
annotation of their affidavit of adverse claim on TCT No. N-290546. It Verily, Canon 7 of the Code of
appears that the parties entered into an amicable settlement during Professional Responsibility
the pendency of Civil Case No. Q-07-59598 in order to end their mandates all lawyers to uphold at
PONENTE:
dispute, whereby the complainants agreed to sell the property and the all times the dignity and integrity
Associate Justice proceeds thereof would be equally divided between the parties, and of the Legal Profession. Lawyers
Lucas P. the complaint and counterclaim would be withdrawn respectively by are similarly required under Rule
Bersamin the complainants (as the plaintiffs) and the defendants. Pursuant to 1.01, Canon 1 of the same Code
the terms of the amicable settlement, Atty. Victorio, Jr. filed a Motion not to engage in any unlawful,
to Withdraw Complaint dated February 26, 2008, dishonest and immoral or deceitful
which the RTC granted in its order dated May 16, 2008 upon noting conduct. Failure to observe these
the defendants’ lack of objection thereto and the defendants’ tenets of the Code of Professional
willingness to similarly withdraw their counterclaim. Responsibility exposes the lawyer
to disciplinary sanctions as
provided in Section 27, Rule 138 of
the Rules of Court as amended.
474. Topic: Serious misconduct.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Enriquez Vs. Atty.
Teresita Enriquez filed a complaint for the disbarment or suspension of Violation of the Code of The Decision wherein the trial court found Teresita civilly Atty. Trina De Vera is SUSPENDED
De Vera
Atty. Trina De Vera in relation to the latter’s issuance of worthless Professional liable to Mary Jane for 540,000.00, and on which Atty. De from the practice of law for one (1)
checks and non-payment of a loan. According to Enriquez, she is a Responsibility and canon: Vera relies upon, is not sufficient evidence to hold that year. Let a copy of this Resolution
businesswoman involved in building cell site towers. She is acquainted there was no separate transaction between Teresita and be entered in Atty. De Vera's
CASE NO.:
Canon 1, Rule 1.01, personal record with the Office of
AC No. 8330 with Atty. De Vera through the business by subcontracting the cell site Atty. De Vera. The Decision involved the post-dated checks
Canon 7 and Rule 7.03 the Bar Confidant, and a copy be
acquisition to Atty. De Vera. issued by Teresita to Mary Jane only. Mary Jane merely served to the Integrated Bar of the
DATE OF claimed that she had no personal knowledge of any Philippines and the Office of the
Sometime in April 2006, Atty. De Vera borrowed Php500,000 from
PROMULGATION: Enriquez with interest of Php20,000 per month until fully paid. Since
transaction between Teresita and Atty. De Vera. Court Administrator for circulation
March 16, 2015 Enriquez did not have the full amount, she was persuaded by Atty. De
The Investigating Commissioner correctly pointed out that to all the courts in the land.
Vera to borrow from a common friend, Mary Jane D. Luzon, by Atty. De Vera's allegation of "lending" her checks to Teresita
PONENTE: mortgaging her property in Lucena City. Atty. De Vera issued a post- is contrary to ordinary human experience. As a lawyer, Atty.
Associate Justice dated check for 500,000 and two more checks to cover the interest De Vera is presumed to know the consequences of her acts.
Marvic Leonen agreed upon. In June 2006, Atty. De Vera obtained another loan from She issued several post-dated checks for value that were
Enriquez’s sister for 100,000, to which, Enriquez was the guarantor. dishonored upon presentation for payment.
Another post-dated check was issued by Atty. De Vera to Enriquez for
the said amount.

Upon maturity of the checks, Enriquez presented them for payment

but the checks bounced for being drawn against insufficient funds.
When attempted to be encashed a second time, the checks were
dishonoured because the account was closed. Thus, Enriquez
demanded payment from Atty. De Vera but the latter failed to settle
her obligations. This prompted Enriquez to file a complaint against
Atty. De Vera for violation of B.P. 22 and estafa under Art. 315, par.
2(d) of the Revised Penal Code.

On the other hand, Atty. De Vera claims that she only issued said
checks to guaranty Enriquez’s loan and they were not meant to be
deposited.
475. Topic: Undue delay in rendering a decision.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
Re: Complaint
dated Jan. 28, 2014 On December 16, 2005, a complaint3 for Annulment and Quieting of Violation of the 1987 The Court DISMISSES for lack of merit the administrative In the assailed Decision, dated
of Wenefredo Title was filed before the RTC-Branch 59 by the petitioners, namely, Constitution: complaint against Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, Justice Elihu A. March 13, 2012, the CA dismissed
Leticia Naguit Aquino, Melvin Naguit, Rommel Naguit, Elma Naguit Ybañez and Justice Amy C. Lazaro-Javier petitioners' appeal. It explained
Parreno, et al.
Tayag, Yssel L. Naguit, Rosalina Naguit Aumentado, Rizel Naguit that under Section 6, Rule 16 of
Against Hon. Celia
Cunanan, Caridad Naguit Parajas, Millie Naguit Florendo, Marnel the Rules of Court, a court is
Librea-Leagogo, et Naguit, Eduardo Naguit, Jose Naguit, Zoilo Naguit, and Amelia Naguit
Section 15 of Article allowed to conduct a preliminary
al. Dizon, represented by Yssel L. Naguit (petitioners). They alleged that VIII hearing, motu proprio, on the
they were the heirs of the late Epifanio Makam and Severina Bautista, defendant's affirmative defenses,
who acquired a house and lot situated in Magalang, Pampanga, including the ground of "lack of
CASE NO.:
consisting of 557 square meters, by virtue of a Deed of Sale, dated cause of action or failure to state a
OCA IPI No. 14-
April 20, 1894; that since then, they and their predecessors-in-interest cause of action."10 It gave the
220-CA-J
had been in open, continuous, adverse, and notorious possession for reason that because the rule spoke
more than a hundred years, constructing houses and paying real in general terms, its manifest
DATE OF
estate taxes on the property; that sometime in June 2005, they intention was to apply it to all
PROMULGATION:
received various demand letters from the respondents, namely, Cesar grounds for a motion to dismiss
March 17, 2015 B. Quiazon, Amanda Quiazon, Jose B. Quiazon, and Reynaldo B. under the rules which were
Quiazon, represented by Jaime B. Quiazon (respondents), claiming pleaded as affirmative defenses in
PONENTE: ownership over the subject property and demanding that they vacate the responsive pleading. Thus, it
Associate the same; that upon inquiry with the Register of Deeds of San held that the trial court might
Justice Lucas P. Fernando, Pampanga, they confirmed that the property had been consider other evidence aside
Bersamin
titled in the name of respondents under Transfer Certificate of Title from the averments in the
(TCT) No. 213777-R; that the said title was invalid, ineffective, voidable complaint in determining the
or unenforceable; and that they were the true owners of the property. sufficiency of the cause of action.
476. Topic: Gross Negligence.
CASE TITLE: ACTS COMPLAINED: LEGAL BASIS
EDUARDO A.
MAGLENTE Eduardo Maglente, president of the Samahan ng mga Violation of the Code of
vs. Maralitang Taga Ma. Corazon III, Inc engaged the services of Professional
ATTY. DELFIN R. Atty. Delfin Agcaoili to determine the true owner of the land Responsibility:
AGCAOILI occupied by the Samahan. Maglente gave Atty. Agcaoili the
amound of Php48, 000.00 to cover the filing fees. However,
CASE NO.:
Atty. Agcaoili failed to file an action in court and claims that the
A.C No. 10672
amount given by Maglente was not enough to fully pay the filing
fees. Maglente then asked for the refund of the money but, Atty
DATE OF
Agcaoili claimed that he already spent the money and even
PROMULGATION:
demanded more money. When Maglente further insist for the
March 18, 2015
return of the amount, Atty Agcaoili told him to shut up as it was
PONENTE: not Maglente’s money in the first place. Maglente was
Associate Justice compelled to file this administrative complaint to recover the
Estela Perlas- amount he paid to the respondent. In his reply, Atty. Agcoili
Bernabe explained that he already prepared the pleading however, it
was only later when he discovered that the filing fee was quite
costly which prompted him to demand additional amount. The
IBP Investigating Officer recommended that Atty. Agcaoili be
meted with the penalty of Censure and directs the respondent
to return the amount of Php48,000.00 to Maglente. The IBP-
BOG adopted the recommendation with modification on the
penalty of Censure to suspension from practice of law for 3
months.
SUPREME COURT’S RULING CASE DISPOSITION
The Court sustains the directive for respondent to account for The court affirmed the
or return the amount of P48,000.00 to complainant. It is well to recommendation of the IBP with
note that “while the Court has previously held that disciplinary modification on the penalty imposed.
proceedings should only revolve around the determination of The law provides under the Canon 18
the respondent-lawyer’s administrative and not his civil liability, and Rule 18.03 that a lawyer shall
Rule 16.01 it must be clarified that this rule remains applicable only to serve his client with competence and
diligence and shall not neglect the a
claimed liabilities which are purely civil in nature – for instance,
legal matter entrusted to him and his
when the claim involves moneys received by the lawyer from
negligence in connection therewith
his client in a transaction separate and distinct [from] and not
shall render him liable. Moreover,
intrinsically linked to his professional engagement.” Since the
under the Canon 16, Rule 16.01 and
aforesaid amount was intended to answer for filing fees which 16.03, it is provided that a lawyer
is intimately related to the lawyer-client relationship between shall hold in trust of all the money
complainant and respondent, the Court finds the return thereof and properties that may come into
to be in order. his possession, account and shall be
delivered when due or upon
demand. In the case at bar, Maglente
engaged the services of Agcoili for
the purpose of filing a case in court
and gave the amount of Php48,000
for the corresponding filing fees.
Atty. Agcoili, the moment that he
accepted the amount of money is
duty bound to serve his client cause
and properly appropriate the money
to its intended purpose. However, he
failed. He did not file the case and
worst is he spent the money and it
did not serve its purpose. Thereby,
sentencing him a penalty of 1 year
suspension.